NATO Unites Against Iranian Missiles

The Strategy Page ^ | 2/5/2011 | The Strategy Page

[Army Air Corps]

Ping.

[TheZMan]

Spend, spend, spend, spend.

How much does preemptive action without nation building cost exactly?

Not as much as all the BS.

[Prokopton]

I am not so sanguine about the efficacy of any NATO coordination during a serious threat. I also note that the U.S. provides the missiles, at our expense.

We should concentrate on protecting the U.S. and doing it with advanced technology, probably from space.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

We need this.There would also be 130 interceptors based on ships. The interceptors work by physically hitting the ballistic missile in mid-flight.These ship based interceptors will also be working with the ground based interceptors. There would also be missiles to try to destroy incoming rockets in the final stages. These missiles will aso protect Europe from Russian SS-26 missiles and possible North Korean missiles

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Do a “layered defense”.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Do a “layered defense”.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

This is what a NMD defense system should look like. Its a intergrated layered defense

[Army Air Corps]

Indeed. Multiple opportunities to destroy an inbound. Layered defense has been part of ABM efforts since the early days of such programmes for a reason.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

The Russians have their Gorgon and Gazelle system around Moscow.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

and ABM-1 Galosh

[Army Air Corps]

Yes. We had Sentinel and, later, Safeguard under development until the ABM treaty. Even then, some were opposed to the US defending herself from ballistic missile attack.

[Army Air Corps]

Based on the A-35 ABM, no?

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

NATO needs leadership. The missiles will follow, but we aren’t going to get any leaders from the White House.

Is Idi Amin still available? At least he ate his enemies.

[Prokopton]

This system is, at once, too complicated, too limited, too vulnerable, too expensive and too dependent on unreliable “allies”.
The “high ground” is where efficient defense will eventually evolve to along with its certain offensive capabilities. We might as well put our money now on what is certain to be the future, treaties to the contrary be damned. This is also how we can stay ahead of potential enemies. China let alone the Soviets, already have all of our land and sea based technology.

[Hardraade]

Cr*p on all this sniveling missile defense BS. A few quick airbursts over selected Iranian sites would take care of the problem for good, cheaply, and with educational effect.

[PIF]

All Russian anti-ICBM systems use nuclear warheards of about 5 kiloton yeilds, and have since the 60s.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

They tested the Spartan warhead in the Cannikan shot in 1971. Cannikin was intended to test the design of the Spartan anti-ballistic missile (ABM) interceptor – a high-yield warhead that “produced copious amounts of x-rays and minimized fission output and debris to prevent blackout of ABM radar systems. It was a 5 megaton burst about 500 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

You are wrong. The A-135 Gazelle uses a 10 kiloton burst.

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

A-35 Russian ABM is still in service.There is the ABM-1B. One primary upgrade was in the Dunay-3U radar The system finalized at 8 sites with total of 64 launchers, with 4 major radar centers completed systems enhanced with a dedicated sector search abilility. Phase 3 went into service in 1978.